Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 760 - AT - Income TaxTDS liability -period of limitation - CIT(A) held that instead of fixing the liability of TDS on 21% to be charged by the KIADB from the assessee for various services, the liability should be restricted to 4% as per the revision order passed by the Government of Karnataka - Held that:- It is seen that the AO himself has passed order u/s 201(1A) only in respect of first four years i.e. assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2010-11. Hence it is seen that for financial years ending on or before 31-03-2010, no order has been passed by the AO u/s 201(1) of the IT Act and for these years, he has passed orders u/s 201(1A) only. Now, we have to decide as to whether these orders u/s 201(1A) are time barred or not because these were passed after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Bharat Hotels Limited (2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ), it was held that the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 28.01.2008 for the AY: 2002-03 is barred by limitation as the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Respectfully following this judgment, we hold that in the present case also, the orders passed after the end of the financial year in question is time barred and hence the same is quashed. Such time barred orders are four i.e AY: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Remaining three orders for AY: 2011-12 to 2013-14 are not time barred even as per this judgment as these orders are passed in the month of March & April 2014.i.e before expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we quash these four orders as time barred for AY: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Regarding the second contention that no income has accrued to the deductee, we are of the considered opinion that the payment was made by the assessee to KIADB and since the payment of ₹ 1,225.00 Crores to KIADB is not specified to be on account of land acquisition only, it has to be held that such payment by the assessee to KIADB is a combined payment and it also included service charges and in that situation, whether the income is accounted for by the payee i.e. KIADB is not relevant because it is settled principle of law by now that book entry is not decisive and since even now, 4% service charges is payable and payment was made by the assessee company to KIADB for an amount in an excess of that 4 %, the assessee was required to deduct TDS and if the assessee or the deductee felt that no TDS or lower TDS was deductible for any reason, they should have approached the payee i.e. KIADB to grant a certificate for no deduction of TDS or low deduction of TDS and since this was not done by the assessee or the payee, this contention is not acceptable that no TDS was deductible by the assessee company. Considering all these facts and in view of our above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in any of the years out of his order for three years being AY: 2011-12 to 2013- 14
|